Texas Vs Biden

[GURPS]

The next surreal story came from Texas, which appears to be following through with Governor Abbott’s vow to keep fighting after the Supreme Court vacated an injunction Tuesday that barred the Border Patrol from removing razor wire except for medical emergencies. Take a look at this equally-unbelievable headline also from yesterday’s Daily Mail:





The hot takes yesterday suggested Texas was somehow “defying” the Supreme Court, which is wrong, because the Supreme Court did not order Texas to do or not do anything. Thus, there was nothing to ‘defy.’ All the Supreme Court did on Tuesday was remove a lower-court ban against the federal government. It’s order didn’t even require Texas to let the Border Patrol into Eagle Pass, even though it took away one of Texas’s arguments for keeping the feds out.

According to the Mail article, after Texas seized Shelby Park — the public part of Eagle Pass — somehow border jumpers seemed to immediately know all about it and have started crossing on private ranch property on either side of the area now controlled by the Texas National Guard. Not surprisingly, the ranchers complained, and Texas responded by offering to install razor wire fences on their property for free.

Border Patrol needs ranchers’ permission to enter their private property, which some ranchers appear to be giving. The ranchers’ views about border crossers seems to somewhat depend on their political persuasions.

But much more significant than the razor wire giveaways were Governor Abbott’s public comments. In his recent tweets, Governor Abbott has repeatedly referred to two connected concepts: the Constitution’s Article I, Section 10, which allows States to declare war without Congress if they are “actually invaded” or are in “imminent danger.”

Abbott has repeatedly cited Section 10 adding that he has also officially declared an invasion, which seems to satisfy the Constitution’s “actual invasion” requirement. Not that it will stop Biden’s lawyers, but it seems pretty hard to argue that Texas isn’t being “actually invaded.”

Abbott, known for being cautious with his language, issued a fiery official gubernatorial letter yesterday, and its first paragraph inarguably evoked pre-Civil War rhetoric by accusing Biden’s federal government of “breaking its compact” with the States:





The final paragraph in Abbott’s letter, referring to Section 10’s Constitutional authority, seems pregnant with possibility for future conflict, since it suggested Texas intends to ignore the Border Patrol’s federal statutory authority:





There are a couple ways to read that. Saying the Constitution is the supreme law of the land which supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary is just uncontroversially reiterating black-letter law. Of course the Constitution supersedes conflicting statutes. But in context, that statement triggered a lot of democrats, some of whom are now calling for Biden to “seize control” of the Texas National Guard.





Remarkably, historically, and surreally, the dispute between one of the largest States in the Union and the federal government is playing out in real time on social media, as evidenced by the very first, inflammatory comment to Abbott’s tweet about his letter, by the owner of America’s largest social media platform:





The dispute is causing so many problems for Joe Biden that some liberal commenters are even speculating that the Supreme Court knew this would happen when they issued their decision on Tuesday revoking the razor-wire-removal injunction. So far, no one seems able to suggest any good move for Team Biden; every possible response — including inaction — would be politically unviable and would be a gigantic election-year black eye for Biden.

Let us count the ways Biden has failed lately. President Peters is about to lose his epic Proxy War in Ukraine, a prospect he himself has described in apocalyptic terms for two years now. Just this month Biden started a brand new Proxy War against Iran, via Yemen and whatever else our military is doing in the Middle East these days, with or without a conscious Defense Secretary. And now, Biden has launched an unwinnable political battle with Texas that appears to be shoving the country towards the precipice of Civil War.

Not too good!

Any of these developments would be remarkable on its own. Together they are unprecedented. Nothing like this has ever happened in our lifetimes. In saner times, cooler, wiser heads would have long since headed off this kind of conflict with Texas, de-escalated, and brokered some peaceable resolution behind the scenes, but that kind of statesmanship doesn’t seem to be happening these days.

In other words, there don’t seem to be any brakes or off-ramps on Texas’s highway to more serious conflict. Mercifully, it is still more likely to be resolved in the courts; on Tuesday the Supreme Court only kicked the queso down the road and only temporarily delayed a generation-defining decision.

It never should have reached this point at all.

☕️ CROSSROADS ☙ Thursday, January 25, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

I know I keep saying this, but today we review the two biggest stories of the year: the failed bribery of Arizona Senate candidate Kari Lake; and Texas's practical declaration of war at the border.

www.coffeeandcovid.com

 

[stgislander]

If the Reps had a larger majority in the House, an Impeachment vote would pass easily.

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

According to the so-called Public Broadcasting System (PBS), which these days is obsessed with American’s bathroom habits and wastewater testing — according to the state-run media outlet there is a terrifying standoff on the Mexican border — you might even call it a Mexican Standoff — as Governor Abbott obstinately defies the Supreme Court:



That’s what PBS’s viewers are getting. Or you could also roll over to Fox News for a completely different take. Fox’s experts agree Texas is doing exactly the right thing:





Fox’s experts agree with my analysis of the Supreme Court’s Tuesday decision, which is that the Justices did not order Texas to do or not do anything. This is a fine distinction lost, apparently, on PBS’s reporters, who will probably soon be replaced by A.I. anyhow. To prepare you for the cognitive mush being cooked up for you by corporate media, here are the two arguments PBS’s expert, Stephen Vladeck, a UT law professor, made about the Constitutional issues and Governor Abbott’s declaration of invasion.

As I predicted, they intend to quibble over the definition of “invasion.” To Professor Vladeck, it’s obvious:

I mean, the first is that, obviously, an influx of asylum seekers, however many we're talking about, is not what the founders had in mind when they used the word invasion.​

Obviously. But is it obvious, professor, that an army of asylum seekers is not what the founders had in mind? Here’s Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition of “invasion:”





Next, the professor seemed to backtrack a little, generously allowing that not everyone might agree with his emaciated definition of “invasion” (he never actually defined the term himself), and unmasked his second argument, which is that it is simply preposterous to allow States to decide for themselves when they are getting invaded. How would they know? They should have to ask DC whether they are being invaded or not:

But, Laura, second, even if you're not persuaded by that, the clause Governor Abbott's relying on in Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution was dealing with the specific scenario of the ability of states to respond to invasions until federal authorities were able to respond.​

There's no support in our history, there's no support in founding or other materials for the idea that states can decide for themselves that they're under invasion, and, even if the federal government disagrees, that somehow it's the state's determination that would control.​

Ah, but the professor conveniently forget basic Constitutional law. The Constitution is a designed to limit federal authority, not the States. In fact, the underused 10th Amendment expressly says when the Constitution is silent, we defer to States’ rights, we don’t search around in “founding or other materials for ideas.” The 10th Amendment is one plain sentence:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So. If I weren’t so busy, I’d apply for a job teaching law at the University of Texas. Apparently they take anybody.

I jest. I will charitably assume Professor Vladeck knows better than this political pabulum and was surprised during his morning calisthenics by the reporter’s phone call and didn’t really think it all through. But it does makes one wonder: why are democrats are so determined to allow the country to be swamped with refugees; what’s really going on?




25 states have signed a letter pledging to support Texas.

Is it so-called Replacement Theory? Are blue states trying to compensate for shrinking congressional seats due to their citizens’ flight from their loathsome pandemic policies? Or is there a deep-state scheme to take permanent control of Congress in the next census, since illegals now count in congressional allocations and they always head for blue states were benefits are better?

I believe the answer is much, much bigger and more obvious than any of these theories.

☕️ MEXICAN STANDOFFS ☙ Friday, January 26, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

In today's special edition, we tackle the thorniest border problem of all. Plus a multiplier and some great election news.

www.coffeeandcovid.com

 

[stgislander]

Devil's advocate: Could it possibly be a case where Abbott is using the word "invasion", just like the Dems using the word "insurrection" for Jan 6th? Both could technically be correct depending on your point of view, but not really the everyday accepted use of either word.

 

[Kyle]

Turnabout is fair play.

I’ve been saying for a long time, they need to be using the Democrats playbook against them.

 

[Toxick]

I don't know about anyone else, but I would love to see more open blatant defiance by the states against the federal government.

I heard - haven't confirmed yet, so it may be BS - that the US Border Patrol has sided with Texas.

 

[Grumpy]

I heard - haven't confirmed yet, so it may be BS - that the US Border Patrol has sided with Texas.

Read or saw a video on that this morning..

 

[Ken King]

I heard - haven't confirmed yet, so it may be BS - that the US Border Patrol has sided with Texas.

Heard the same, think its the rank and file, not the bureaucrats.

 

[Hijinx]

Was the Trojan Horse an invasion?
It wasn't when they brought it inside, but it turned out to be when they came out of it.
That is pretty much todays Texas invasion. It may not fit the dictionary definition today, but how long before they show themselves for what they are.